…but you’re wrong.
@viv was posting his thoughts on the impact THIS PROPOSAL would have on the price of $atom.
This thread is the right place to do that.
I understand that @btruax and other informal systems team members may disagree, but if they do, they can do like any pleb and use their words like a big boy / girl.
Instead, Informal Systems chose to silence the entire discussion, which is fully valid and well placed.
@viv then came back and gloated that he was correct that THIS PROPOSAL had the effect on the price of $atom that he anticipated, making at least one person (me) aware of gov prop driven volatility opportunities and I’m grateful for it. In the future I may attempt such shorts.
I think it’s important to remain grounded - this proposal wasn’t a “mechanical process”. It funded Informal (or another unnamed entity) to work on hydro. Funding proposals:
- Have real financial impacts
- Should be reviewed even years after their passage to determine weather or not value was brought to the community
- Should never have their posts locked, because they need to be discussed
Way I’m seeing it is that @viv provided more value to the community by outlining an opportunity than this entire proposal will ever bring.
@Thyborg can you provide the community with information about the company / entity you said would be created to pursue this work?
- What is its name?
- Where is it registered?
- Is it raising money?
- Who is it raising money from?
- Does it exist?
- Are people hired?
- How’s progress?
- Blockers?
- Timeline?
@qxnico was this post helpful in expanding your understanding of why @viv commentary is entirely in the right place?
Do you have any questions for me?